You should consider switching to an entirely independent distribution that does not lock security updates behind a paywall, perhaps something based directly on Debian or Fedora.
While Canonical deserves the criticisms leveled by op (that I agree with), it’s also incorrect to say that they lock security updated behind a paywall.
Anyone that does use Ubuntu gets security updated until they stop supporting that particular release version, which iirc is for six years (I may be wrong, thus is from memory).
If you want extended security updates for a specific version of the os, you can elect to sign up to Ubuntu pro without paying any money. You do have to make an account, and if you so choose you can populate the account info with garbage info and a disposable email, and you’ll get extended security updates for that release version.
While Canonical deserves the criticisms leveled by op (that I agree with), it’s also incorrect to say that they lock security updated behind a paywall.
Anyone that does use Ubuntu gets security updated until they stop supporting that particular release version, which iirc is for six years (I may be wrong, thus is from memory).
I quoted the relevant part and yet you still don’t understand that Universe is explicitly not covered by security support by Canonical without Ubuntu Pro.
The updates available through Ubuntu Pro wouldn’t have normally been available prior to Pro. It’s an added service, not something that was previously available that is now locked behind a paywall. There are plenty of reasons to not like Canonical but this isn’t one.
It’s an added service, not something that was previously available that is now locked behind a paywall.
I didn’t say anything about it having changed, so your “now” is disingenuous. Fact is, update support by Canonical for Universe is locked behind Ubuntu Pro. Non-Ubuntu distributions such as CachyOS/Fedora/Bazzite/openSUSE/Debian/… don’t have this hostile behaviour.
They also don’t provide those updates.
I am a Fedora guy by the way. I’m not defending Canonical, just pointing out that this is a silly reason to dislike them.
Strong agree. I use a derivative that blocks snaps instead of direct Kubuntu now, and it wasn’t Just because of the snaps.
Without Ubuntu Pro subscription the entire Universe repository does not receive any security updates by Canonical:
https://canonical.com/blog/ubuntu-pro-enhanced-security-and-manageability-for-linux-desktop
You should consider switching to an entirely independent distribution that does not lock security updates behind a paywall, perhaps something based directly on Debian or Fedora.
Saying this is like screaming “I don’t know anything about Ubuntu except that I hate it!!!”
I posted a screenshot from Ubuntu’s own blog. So they hate themselves and lie to the world?
While Canonical deserves the criticisms leveled by op (that I agree with), it’s also incorrect to say that they lock security updated behind a paywall.
Anyone that does use Ubuntu gets security updated until they stop supporting that particular release version, which iirc is for six years (I may be wrong, thus is from memory).
If you want extended security updates for a specific version of the os, you can elect to sign up to Ubuntu pro without paying any money. You do have to make an account, and if you so choose you can populate the account info with garbage info and a disposable email, and you’ll get extended security updates for that release version.
I quoted the relevant part and yet you still don’t understand that Universe is explicitly not covered by security support by Canonical without Ubuntu Pro.
Drink your verification can to install security updates.
The updates available through Ubuntu Pro wouldn’t have normally been available prior to Pro. It’s an added service, not something that was previously available that is now locked behind a paywall. There are plenty of reasons to not like Canonical but this isn’t one.
I didn’t say anything about it having changed, so your “now” is disingenuous. Fact is, update support by Canonical for Universe is locked behind Ubuntu Pro. Non-Ubuntu distributions such as CachyOS/Fedora/Bazzite/openSUSE/Debian/… don’t have this hostile behaviour.
They also don’t provide those updates. I am a Fedora guy by the way. I’m not defending Canonical, just pointing out that this is a silly reason to dislike them.
What’s a better alternative that uses apt and KDE and has relatively up-to-date packages (other than Debian testing)?
Debian Sid!
What’s wrong with Debian?
I already know about it, so there’s no need to tell me.
Fair enough.
There’s also Pop and Mint, though I don’t know if their update model differs from Ubuntu at all.
But if you’re already familiar with Debian, why not use it? It’s widely recommended for a reason, it’s hard to beat.
May I ask why you seem to be married to the use of
apt?Just couldn’t pass up on the opportunity to insert this banger.Fedora offers apt. AFAIK not by default, so it has to be installed via dnf first but then it’s available.
It’s been like that for years.
It’s maintained by my hardware OEM (Tuxedo) and I’m not even sure it has Universe - most things are flatpaks.
I strongly suggest looking it up.
deleted by creator
i still have a server running ubuntu
i run snaps on it ewwwww!
it has never fucked me over